A Kent couple claim they suffered shock,
humiliation and embarrassment when they discovered their pictures were
published in a magazine filled with "disgusting and exploittive pornographic photographs." The couple, identified only as John and Jane Doe in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Friday, contend their pictures were taken and published without their consent when they attended an event called "Nude stock" in
August 1991. The couple went as members
of Fraternity Snoqualmie, an Issaquah
group that promotes itself as a "family nudist part." Also attending, according
to the suit, were photographers with Deja Vu, Inc., of Nevada and several
female models, who were to produce a group of posed pictures for the
adult magazine Deja Vu Showgirls. But Deja Vu shooters never sought permission or consent from the couple, the suit asserts. And if permission had been sought, "plaintiffs would never have consented for the publication of their photographs in such a revolting publication." the
suit claims. Deja Vu lawyer Bradley
Shafer of Okemos, Mich., yesterday denied that his client did anything
wrong. He said Nudestock was promoted as a public event, that the people
who attended knew tht, and that it was obvious tht many members of
the media, both print and electronic, were there. "The people who attended who took the photos eventually given to Deja Vu were told it was absolutely OK to take photos," Shafer
said. Shafer declined to say
who is behind Deja Vu, which he said runs about 35 adult-entertainment
clubs around the country, including about eight in Washington. Photos
from the Nudestock shoot appeared in November 1991 issue of Deja Vu
Showgirls, which is distributed in clubs, among other places. Seattle attorney Eugene Bolin who represents the Kent Couple described his clients as "cleancut nudists," He contended the Deja Vu photographers took their photos surrepitiouslyl. "No one know they would get published in a smut magazine until the magazine came out." Bolin said he would try
to keep his clients' identities confidential as is possible to spare
them further embarrassment. The suit alleges invasion
of privacy, defamation and ...(several words unreadable) unspecified
damages.